Skip to main content
11:30 am
efforts to come into compliance with the more routine issues. the audit that mr. rose references in his report pertains to a broader audit that we performed a couple of years ago, the sustainable streets division of the mta. which at the time and i believe currently is the division within the mta that is responsible for management of garages. and mr. rose correctly summarized our general findings here, which are that this structure that we're using in the city for some, but not all of our garages, is unusual in state. so we have reviewed other major jurisdictions in the state and this kind of use of non-profit corporations for purposes of administering private contracts between the city and a private operator is not a mechanism that you see in los angeles, san diego, or other major jurisdictions in the state. we do believe it adds unnecessary administrative
11:31 am
expense; which are redundant with some processes and functions that already exist within the mta. in aggregate we estimated this adds $550,000 for the mta. this structure does date, as you indicated, madame chair to, a time when non-profit corporations were established for the purposes of issuing bonds that were used to construct these garages. in a number of cases those bonds are now paid off and we have discontinued the corporation that was really there for a financing purpose. the civic center garage being an example, right across the street here. but in other cases they persist. and we did recommend in the audit that the mta do a thorough cost-benefit review in essence, of the continued added value of these corporations, as
11:32 am
the debt is paid off. i would be happy to answer questions related to these. >> thank you to the mta. >> chairperson chu, steve lee. >> it sounds like the mta concurred with the findings and was working to resolve the issues, but on the larger issue about whether or not this financial structure is still one that ought to continue moving forward. it appears that the mta is applying the policy very differently. and so in two structures they are dissolving of that original non-profit intermediary structure and two, recommending to move forward. can you explain what your board's rationale was for having an inconsistent application? >> supervisor, in addition, to
11:33 am
the non-profit, the mta currently has in existence we have portsmith garage run by the rec and park department. so actually five non-profits existed as part, that we looked at as part of the inwinding of the bonds. what the mta board requested to do to go to the four non-profits that we oversee and have a [pha-ults/] discuss with each of the non-profits to see where they were in terms of unwining and serving in an advisory capacity. two of the non-profits choose to unwind their corporate structure and serve in the advisory capacity and that is ellis-o'farrell and 5th and mission. the two other before you today, the board wanted to continue in a lease structure and basically mta's direction to take leadership from the corporation's desire. that is what we did. so we came back to the mta board and advised them of that fact and they endorsed these two leases
11:34 am
to continue. understanding the non-profit corporation's board desire to continue. >> was there according to the audit recommendation a cost-benefit analysis that was conducted that informed the commissioners when they made this decision? >> a cost-benefit analysis has been completed, but only from an operational perspective. i think what is missing is the indirect community benefits and the marketion and the relationship side of the house of the nonprofits have with individual businesses. that part of the oversight has not been quantified. and we hope in the coming year, as part of the review of these new leases, that we would look at that and try to quantify that piece. because mta doesn't do any marketing or outreach for the non-profit garages. the corporations do. so if we were to take it in-house, not only would we have to operate the garages we would have to have some sort of marketing and outreach and communication effort that we have never done
11:35 am
before that has not been quantified. >> is there any reason to believe that the mta wouldn't be able to administer these garages? >> no, we have -- most of the garages we administer. so there won't be much incremental administrative cost, but the marketing and communication costs with the local businesses that we with would have to evaluate that we haven't done. >> i think in one respect having the input of the businesss is absolutely important because it's what helps to have the businesses to continue have to customers come through who are able to park and shop and frequent those businesses. so i understand that connection. would it be difficult to create something similar to an advisory body that would be able to serve the same purpose? >> absolutely not. that is what 5th and miss and ellis and o'farrell will be doing soon. the unwinding the leases and corporations and the creation of a new advisory board that will serve only in an advisory capacity >> for the two other
11:36 am
structures where they are unwinding that financial relationship, you are maintaining an advisory body? >> that is what they would like to do. yes. >> okay. thank you. if there are no questions at this time i would like to open public comment for these two items. items 1 and 2. i do have a number of speakers who are here. [ reading speakers' names ] as you come up, please indicate which item you are up for, 1 or 2. >> good morning supervisors, my name is answeron lee, the corporate manager for the uptown parking corporation, overseeing the sutter stockton garage, as well as the union square garage. i have been serving as the corporate manager for the corporation for over eight years now. i have been doing sort of a non-profit corporate management
11:37 am
status for over 12 years in the downtown area. and actually was hired going way back, about 25 plus years of parking operation parking management experience. in doing so, when i was first brought on board with the non-profit, it sort of really enlightened me. it wasn't just about the revenues generated with every car and how we as operators look at it as far as just driving the basics,. if you look at, it private garages may look at it that way. i have learned working with my non-profit group and i have been involved with community benefit districts since i have been on board with the non-profits of really serving the community. you know, these garages and these communities at these locations really serve a
11:38 am
diverse amount. i have learned with the different aspectss in really getting to know the locations that i serve. for example, 1865 parking spaces at sutter stockton, 12 stories. however, we have a very different sort of clientele as what we serve at union square with about half the capacity. and we do what we can to really have the oversight of what really serves our community? we have probably a 30% drop in transient volume over the span that i have seen. and it's various reasons, you know? be it traffic, be it the office, financial community. because really 40-50% of the patrons are not necessarily shoppers. then we have the 3-4-hour stay of shopping and dining and what not. so a lot of different aspects we do bring in and with the comments and support of the
11:39 am
non-profit corporations, really understands the community. i think that management oversight is very vital for the community for the benefit, not just to one department, not to the garage, but really to the city as a whole. i find myself being a resident, raising my kids in the city, that i'm an ambassador to the district that i serve. rather than driving way to a shopping mall with free parking, downtown is vital and easy access and really serving the community and for the benefit of the city. thank you. >> next speaker. >> good morning madame chair and mr. supervisor. my name is paul newman and i'm the counsel for the uptown parking corporation and i work with the corporation for many, many years. and i just want to say that the board consistents of downtown business people, who contribute their time and very serious and
11:40 am
sincere in their efforts to provide service by providing parking. they are very clear and very concise in their attempts to run the garage in the best manner that they can and provide the most revenue for the city and the best service for downtown parking. and i have always been proud to be part of the uptown parking corporation, because i think they do a great job, and i would like to see them continue. so thank you. >> thank you. >> my name is sidney goodwell, the president of the uptown sparking corporation. i have been on the board for 30 years and i was a retailer in the area and still involved with property there. on our board we have a cross-section from retail and
11:41 am
hotels and businesses in the area, who give their time over and over and over again, for one purpose only. to see what we can do to improve the situation in the union square area. it works very well. we have a good organization. i think we have two employees and i'm not sure if the corporation cease to exist that the work of these two employees would be just absorbed. you would have to probably have two other employees anyways. but i think we have done a great job. and i hope that we're able to continue. thank you. >> thank you. >> hi. my name is hagan choi, the president of the garage madame chair and supervisor avalos, we
11:42 am
are representing the cross-section of the people and this board has excellent communication with san francisco municipal transportation agency. so like rate changes happen among the merchants and since we're the members of the small business, we're also members of the neighborhood. and we're working through our network with japan town task force, japan better neighborhood association. our board members are volunteers, and we care for the community. so we're involved in activities and involved? the japan center garage. thank you. >> good morning supervisors i'm bob hamagucci, on the board
11:43 am
of directors for the japan center garage and i'm the executive director of the japantown task force. first off, let me comment that please excuse the absolute absence of our garage manage who suffered a back problem and unfortunately had to go to the emergency. what i wanted to comment on the japan center garage is a very important community asset and has particularly unique and strong value and i think both to the community and to the city. there is a long history with, this as you know, as related to the entire development of the shopping center, and back in the '60s and today, the issues of preservation of the japanese
11:44 am
and cultural character of the neighborhood. so there is an ongoing need to support the existing small businesses and micro businesses, and i think this garage corporation serves a very important role in doing that. i think it's very important to have a ongoing understanding of local [kpwh-ebg/] needs. the marketing of the garage is conducted bit organization, and in conclusion, i think any lesser role would be a very significant loss to both the community and the city. thank you. >> thank you, are there other speakers for items 1 and 2? >> thank you, budget and finance. it's hard on a fella, when he doesn't always know his parking way around. we need some parking in the
11:45 am
city, in the city and town. oh, it's a saturday night and i ain't get no parking. i need some parking in the city, hey. i am in an awful way. there is another fella, who told me he had a city for parking and driving just fine. instead of being my deliverance, it had a parking resemblance to a city of parking like frankenstein. oh, it's a saturday night and i ain't got no parking. i got no parking by the city in the bay. i am in an awful way. and i want to go downtown, where all the lights are bright. parking downtown, it's waiting for me tonight. parking downtown, the garage and parking is waiting for you.
11:46 am
>> thank you. are there other members of the public who wish to speak on items 1 or 2? seeing none, public comment is closed. we have two these items before us. if there are no other questions i do have a few comments to make on them. i do appreciate the folks who have come out to speak and i absolutely understand why it has become part of the fabric of some of the community where's they do exist. so i do want indicate that comment or register that comment. there are a few things that make me uncomfortable with this item and these were two pieces of legislation that i thought would be pretty easy, but as i started to speak to individuals about, it i became less comfortable in the two items and supporting them at this time. one, i'm still not quite convinced with regard to the transfer of the $2 million. these are funds that i know you had indicated not necessarily for capital, but for operations
11:47 am
and the fact that that would be swept to the mta without regard to kind of capital component or needs that may exist for some of the garages. i'm a little bit weary about this component of it. the other area that gives me heartburn on this is the fact that we have existing structures that have been unwound in two other instances and in this case it seems like we're applying a very different standard from the mta board on them. you have two structures that are going to continue on or naught board has move forward to us and will continue as-is and two others unwound when bonds were paid off, where an advisory body continues to exist to make sure there is a strong relationship with the communities that they serve. so it's very strange, i think, for the mta to bring forward to us two very different structures without a rationalization as to why. so i think this is where i have a concern. if it is the case that we want to treat these two entities differently, then the other
11:48 am
ones that have unwound in the city, i want to understand why. i want to understand what the cost-benefit analysis is. what is benefit to the city to do so? because otherwise, why wouldn't we we directly manage it? why wouldn't we hold the mta itself to a higher level of standard to deliver a good garage and good service? so i think that is where my concern does lie. i support the idea of supporting small businesses for most of my term. that is where i focused most of my legislation and efforts within my district to support the small businesses and know vitally well how much we do have to support them from everything on parking to making sure that we're helping with different facade improvements to really making sure that we have a vibrant merchant area. so i absolutely understand and sympathize with that, but i don't know why we have to have this structure in order to make that succeed? i think there are many, many ways we can help make sure we have a very vibrant merchant area. so i suppose i'm not seeing the
11:49 am
connection to why there is this exception to the rule from the mta board and i would like to see more of that come to light before moving this item forward to consider at the full board of supervisors and so, of course, i would like to hear what my colleague thinks about this, but my incliningation is to continue the item to hear from the mta board to why the exception to the rule in this situation? and really trying to understand what the tangible reason is for not following audit recommendations? so those are many of the concerns and some of the comments that i wanted to make. >> i would continue, but not continue indefinitely. >> one of the things that i would like to hear from the
11:50 am
mta, is there a time you could report back to the board of supervisors? >> chairman chu, steve [hrao-erbgs/] i think a 30-day period would be sufficient for us to look at it internally, as well as consult with the mta board >> okay, let's see on the date. february 13th >> yes. >> so i will make a motion to continue the item until february 13th, which is about a month away. can we do that without object? we'll do that without objection. thank you. next item, please. >> item no. 3 resolution approving the 4th amendment to
11:51 am
the contract with icf resources llc for renewable energy and climate change professional services to increase the amount of the contract by $12,400,000 for a total of $31,400,000 and to extend the term of the contract from july 1 2014 to december 31 2016. >> thank you very much. >> supervisor, guillermo rodriguez from the department. we're here seeking your approval to the 4th amendment to the contract with icf resources to increase the contract amount by $12.4 million for a total of $31.4 million and to extend the term of the contract from july 1,2014 through december 31, 2016. icf provides the department with process incentive payments and quality control for our energy-efficient programs, as well as technical assistance. the original contract was approved by the board of
11:52 am
supervisors, in the amount of $19 million for five years and three months, and the department as this committee and the board knows has received additional funding for our energy-efficiency work and programs. we have secured additional funding for an additional two years and thus we're requesting increasing this contract and the date. i am happy to answer any questions that the committee may have. >> on this item we not have a budget analyst's report, correct? why don't we open this item up to public comment. any members of public wishing to speak on item no. 3? >> wouldn't it be nice to make up city people -- we'll all agree soon the money is up more and more and the miracle that god created. one of the miracles got created. and the people city energy tree.
11:53 am
soon the money is up more and more and more and then we'll have city more, budget more in the budget energy tree. the people city tree. >> thank you. are there other members of public who wish to speak on item no. 3? seeing none, public comment is closed. just a quick question to the department. with regard to the extension of the term, it looks like this is the 4th amendment to this term and i'm just wondering is there sort of a limitation under which you would go out and do a new rfp? >> correct, the term is now looking at sequence for this program and that would also give us the appropriate time to put together a new rfp for issuance going forward for additional work. >> so the intention is to go out with an rfp roughly in 2014?
11:54 am
>> correct. >> >> this item is before us, do we have a motion? we have a motion to send item forward with recommendation and do that without objection. thank you. >> item nato 4, resolution fixing prevailing wage rates for workers performing work under city contracts. >> thank you for this item we have jennifer johnson. >> good morning, jennifer johnson executive director of the civil service commission. before you is certified rates bit civil service commission, certified on october 1st. annually the board of supervisors is required to fix the prevailing wage rates of employees who are employees of contractors performing services for the city and county of san francisco in the areas of public works and construction,
11:55 am
motor bus service, janitorial, et cetera. and in establishing the preliminarying wage, the administrative code requires that the civil service commission to certify preliminarying wage data to you. again what have you before you is the vary conducted by the office of labor standards and enforcement, certified by the civil service commission october 1st for your consideration. we have donna levitt from the office of labor standards and enforcement, if you have questions. two exceptions, no. 1 being that the survey has included a review of fringe benefit data as required to a recent administrative code change and the second change being that the survey was completed by the office of labor standards enforcement instead of the
11:56 am
department of human resources, which had previously been done in the past. and i can answer any questions that you may have in general, with respect to the administrative cold requirements. >> thank you very much. why don't we go to the budget analyst's report? >> madame chair, and supervisor avalos, on page 4 of the report we point out on attachment 2, that is on page 7, that attachment summarizes the types of contracts, leases, operating agreements required to pay the preliminarying wages, with respect to collective bargaining agreements and labor union and hourly increases in 2013 compared to 2012. the specified hourly rates exclude fringe benefits, pension, vacation and holiday pay, which are separately calculated and provided in the data forwarded by the civil service commission to the board of supervisors. we also note that any increase contract cost to the city as a result of the proposed
11:57 am
resolution are dependent on future city contractors' bids and the extent to which increase of preliminarying wage rates result in higher bids submitted by city contractors and therefore he we cannot estimate any potential increase at this time. we a consider approval of this resolution to be a policy decision for the board of supervisors. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? >> i am blue by you. we're going back some day, and we need some wage on blue bayou. where the budget is fine and you give us a dime, and it's thank you. and they work hard for the
11:58 am
money. so hard for the money. they work hard for the money so you better treat them right. all right, they work hard for the money. so hard for it, city. they work hard for the money, so you better treat them right. all right? >> thank you. are there other members of public who wish to speak on item 4? seeing none, public comment is close. we have a motion to send the item forward with recommendation and we'll do that without objection. thank you. >> item no. 5, ordinance amending san francisco administrative code to create a public utilities water enterprise capital cost recovery payment surge charge fund. >> would you call item of as well? >> item no. 6, resolution approving the pre-pavement and collection a agreement between
11:59 am
the bay area water supply and conservation agency and public utilities commission and authorizing the taking of appropriate agencies in connections therewith and related matters. >> thank you very much. todd redstrom from the puc. >> thank you very much for the opportunity to talk to you today. >> one moment, please. >> we're going to turn on the microphone. >> assistant jeffries & general and cfo for the public utilities commission. we appreciate the consideration of this proposal. it includes bond documents, a tax certificate, as well as a surcharge fund ordinance and most important that it provides rate-payer relief and savings. with that in mind i would like to thank

January 16, 2013 11:30am-12:00pm PST

TOPIC FREQUENCY Mta 7, Us 5, The City 5, San Francisco 3, Jennifer Johnson 2, Avalos 2, Madame 2, Steve 1, Frankenstein 1, Chu 1, Donna Levitt 1, Hagan Choi 1, Paul Newman 1, Bob Hamagucci 1, Chairperson Chu 1, Answeron Lee 1, Ellis 1, Guillermo Rodriguez 1, Sutter Stockton 1, The Term 1
Network SFGTV
Duration 00:30:00
Scanned in San Francisco, CA, USA
Source Comcast Cable
Tuner Channel 89 (615 MHz)
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec ac3
Pixel width 528
Pixel height 480
Sponsor Internet Archive
Audio/Visual sound, color